Full text of DOI:10.1080/10473289.2000.10464209

This article was downloaded by: [Queen Mary, University of London]
On: 09 October 2014, At: 23:11
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20
A Life-Cycle Comparison of Alternative Automobile
Fuels
Heather L. MacLean a , Lester B. Lave b , Rebecca Lankey c & Satish Joshi d
a Department of Civil Engineering , University of Toronto , Toronto , Ontario , Canada
b Graduate School of Industrial Administration , Carnegie Mellon University ,
Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA
c AAAS Fellow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Washington , DC , USA
d Department of Agricultural Economics , Michigan State University , East Lansing ,
Michigan , USA
Published online: 27 Dec 2011.
To cite this article: Heather L. MacLean , Lester B. Lave , Rebecca Lankey & Satish Joshi (2000) A Life-Cycle
Comparison of Alternative Automobile Fuels, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 50:10, 1769-1779,
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2000.10464209
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2000.10464209
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TECHNICAL PAPER
ISSNM10a47c-L32e8a9nJ.,ALir a&vWea,stLe aMnankaegey.,Aassnocd. 50J:o17s6h9-i1779
Copyright 2000 Air & Waste Management Association
A Life-Cycle Comparison of Alternative Automobile Fuels
Heather L. MacLean
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lester B. Lave
Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Rebecca Lankey
AAAS Fellow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Satish Joshi
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
ABSTRACT
commercially viable. The most attractive alternative fuel is
compressed natural gas because it is less expensive than gaso-
line, has lower regulated pollutant and toxics emissions,
produces less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is avail-
able in North America in large quantities. However, the bulk
and weight of gas storage cylinders required for the vehicle
to attain a range comparable to that of gasoline vehicles
necessitates a redesign of the engine and chassis. Additional
natural gas transportation and distribution infrastructure is
required for large-scale use of natural gas for transportation.
Diesel engines are extremely attractive in terms of energy
efficiency, but expert judgment is divided on whether these
engines will be able to meet strict emissions standards, even
with reformulated fuel. The attractiveness of direct injec-
tion engines depends on their being able to meet strict emis-
sions standards without losing their greater efficiency.
Biofuels offer lower GHG emissions, are sustainable, and
reduce the demand for imported fuels. Fuels from food
sources, such as biodiesel from soybeans and C2H5OH from
corn, can be attractive only if the co-products are in high
demand and if the fuel production does not diminish the
food supply. C2H5OH from herbaceous or woody biomass
could replace the gasoline burned in the light-duty fleet while
supplying electricity as a co-product. While it costs more
than gasoline, bioethanol would be attractive if the price of
gasoline doubled, if significant reductions in GHG emissions
were required, or if fuel economy regulations for gasoline
vehicles were tightened.
We examine the life cycles of gasoline, diesel, compressed
natural gas (CNG), and ethanol (C2H5OH)-fueled internal
combustion engine (ICE) automobiles. Port and direct in-
jection and spark and compression ignition engines are
examined. We investigate diesel fuel from both petroleum
and biosources as well as C2H5OH from corn, herbaceous
bio-mass, and woody biomass. The baseline vehicle is a
gasoline-fueled 1998 Ford Taurus. We optimize the other
fuel/powertrain combinations for each specific fuel as a part
of making the vehicles comparable to the baseline in terms
of range, emissions level, and vehicle lifetime. Life-cycle
calculations are done using the economic input-output life-
cycle analysis (EIO-LCA) software; fuel cycles and vehicle
end-of-life stages are based on published model results.
We find that recent advances in gasoline vehicles, the
low petroleum price, and the extensive gasoline infrastruc-
ture make it difficult for any alternative fuel to become
IMPLICATIONS
Advances in reformulated gasoline-fueled automobiles,
low petroleum prices, and the extensive gasoline infra-
structure hamper alternative fuels in competing with gaso-
line. However, no fuel dominates for all economic, envi-
ronmental, and sustainability attributes. CNG is less ex-
pensive than gasoline, has lower pollutant and GHG emis-
sions, and has large North American reserves. However,
onboard storage penalties and the lack of fuel infrastruc-
ture lower its attractiveness. Biofuels offer lower GHG
emissions, are sustainable, and reduce the demand for
imported fuels. Bioethanol would be attractive if the price
of gasoline doubled or if significant reductions in GHG
emissions were required.
INTRODUCTION
The environmental quality and sustainability costs of U.S.
cars and light-duty trucks are high. However, these
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1769

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
vehicles also offer significant benefits related to personal
freedom, mobility, and consumer affordability. The so-
cial costs can be lowered at the same time that automakers
improve vehicle safety, performance, and affordability,
and, more generally, consumer acceptance. One approach
to achieving these goals is to substitute alternative fuels
for gasoline and diesel, the focus of our work. However,
continuing low fuel prices and the recent rapid improve-
ment in performance and emissions control of gasoline-
fueled automobiles make it ever more difficult for the
alternative fuels to compete.
Although significant research and development is
being devoted to non-ICE automobile options, there are
large remaining potential improvements in the ICE al-
ternatives. Currently, only gasoline and diesel ICE ve-
hicles are optimized for fuel economy, emissions, and
consumer attributes (e.g., vehicle range, ease of refuel-
ing). Although manufacturers are producing small num-
bers of vehicles that are able to run on alternative fuels,
these vehicles are not optimized for these fuels (taking
advantage of the specific fuel properties, such as octane).
In addition, the current infrastructure is designed for the
petroleum fuels.
The potential of each fuel and powertrain combina-
tion can be assessed only through an economy-wide ex-
amination of the material inputs and environmental
discharges associated with the “life cycle” of each combi-
nation.1 For example, in 1996, light-duty vehicles in the
United States consumed over 4.5 billion barrels of crude
oil equivalent (a weighted average of the energy in all
crude oil products used in light-duty vehicles).2 To under-
stand the implications of this fuel use, society needs to
quantify the amount of nonrenewable resource use and
environmental discharges that result from producing and
using this fuel. We employ a systems approach, life-cycle
assessment (LCA), to assess the potential of near-term fossil
and biofuels used in internal combustion engine (ICE)
automobiles. We also include lifetime consumer expen-
diture on fuel and discuss infrastructure issues for each of
the options. The life-cycle approach has identified im-
portant examples in which nonsystems methods lead to
recommending options that move away from the goal
due to secondary impacts. For example, drawing a nar-
row boundary around vehicle-regulated exhaust and
evaporative emissions would indicate that a hybrid elec-
tric vehicle would be preferred over a conventional gaso-
line automobile. However, a broader systems approach
identifies the implications of the significantly higher pro-
duction cost for the hybrid, which is greater than the valu-
ation of the relatively minor emissions benefits and lower
lifetime expenditure on fuel.3
Researchers, including those at University of Califor-
nia at Davis, Ford Motor Company, and Argonne National
Laboratory, have developed spreadsheet-based life-cycle
models that consider a large number of fossil and biofuel/
engine combinations for automobiles.5-10 The studies are
based on process modeling of the life-cycle components
and include varying proportions of the economy-wide
interactions resulting from the life cycles. These models
focus on efficiency, energy use, emissions of criteria pol-
lutants, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the fuel
cycles and vehicle operation, and do not include economic
data. Generally, the studies place less emphasis on the
other life-cycle components and on vehicle optimization.
Major studies on specific biofuel issues (e.g., process cost
estimates, process requirements, and source yields) are
ongoing at the U.S. Department of Energy (National Re-
newable Energy Laboratory), Argonne, and Oakridge Na-
tional Laboratories.
The most comprehensive life-cycle study of a gaso-
line-fueled ICE automobile is a study by the U.S. Council
for Automobile Research.11 Other conventional automo-
bile life-cycle studies include refs 1 and 12–15. Kreucher’s
study includes life-cycle inventories of alternative-fueled
automobiles as well as the baseline conventional gaso-
line-fueled automobile.12 Sullivanet al. report a life-cycle
inventory of diesel and electric vehicles, comparing these
to a baseline gasoline-fueled vehicle.14 Our present work
emphasizes the fuel cycles, but also includes results from
the remainder of the life cycles of conventional and alter-
native fuel/powertrain ICE automobiles. We include eco-
nomic data for the fuel options.
To make a fair comparison of alternative fuel/
powertrain combinations, we assume that the volume
produced is sufficient so that each powertrain is optimized
for the fuel, and a large infrastructure supports refueling,
repair, and so on. Based on 19% of vehicles requiring pre-
mium gasoline and this fuel having a 20% market share,4
we assume the alternative fuels have at least 20% market
share and so would be transported and retailed compara-
bly to current premium gasoline. We analyze the energy,
yield, farmland requirements, and co-products of the
biofuels, assuming both near-term and sustainable pro-
duction. “Sustainable” production of the biofuels refers
to production of these fuels when no fossil fuel is used to
produce them or any required inputs (e.g., fertilizer).
METHODS
We model automobiles with the fuel/powertrain options
in Table 1. The fossil fuels are gasoline, reformulated gaso-
line (RFG), reformulated diesel, CH3OH, and compressed
natural gas (CNG). The biofuels include biodiesel from soy-
beans and ethanol (C2H5OH) from corn (corn C2H5OH),
woody biomass, and herbaceous biomass. We analyze Cali-
fornia Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (CaRFG2) and a low-
sulfur test fuel currently marketed in California, ARCO
1770 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 October 2000

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
based on 100-year GWPs of the GHG.23 We report all life-
cycle results on the basis of the vehicle lifetime.
Table 1. Fuel/powertrain combinations.
Fuel
Powertrain
The EIO-LCA model is employed, except for the ex-
amination of the fuel cycles, vehicle operation, and end
of life. Fuel cycles include the processes of extracting raw
materials, refining/processing, transporting, and retailing
the fuel. The EIO-LCA sectors are too aggregate for the
currently produced fuels (e.g., conventional gasoline,
CaRFG2, and diesel are aggregated into the “petroleum
refining” sector; allocating burdens to these specific prod-
ucts would be arbitrary).
Fuel production is too small for any alternative fuel
to be a sector in the model (e.g., corn C2H5OH). Vehicle
operation includes operational energy and exhaust and
evaporative emissions over the vehicle lifetime. Opera-
tional energy is calculated from lifetime fuel use (total mi
divided by mpg) and the combustion energy in the fuel.
Exhaust emissions are based on the certification standard
and include an allowance for off-cycle emissions. We cal-
culate the off-cycle emissions based on results presented
in ref 24 of the impact of high-speed, high-load off-cycle
driving on exhaust emissions from CaRFG2 and alterna-
tive-fueled automobiles. Vehicle operation GWP is calcu-
lated based on a carbon balance method for CO2 and also
includes estimates of CH4 and N2O for the options where
available. See ref 17 for additional details on the vehicle
operation life-cycle component. End of life of automo-
biles is not included in the EIO-LCA model; we employ
results from ref 11.
For ICE options, our previous work finds that the use
stage in the automobile life cycle has a much larger eco-
nomic impact and environmental burden than vehicle
manufacture, which has larger burdens than end of life.1
The EIO-LCA model used in this work reports the impacts
resulting from the industry itself (e.g., motor vehicle and
passenger car bodies) and those resulting from all suppli-
ers to the industry (e.g., from extraction of raw materials
necessary to produce the components and fluids for the
automobile). The supplier portion of impacts is much
larger than that of the industries themselves. Primary dif-
ferentiating factors among the ICE alternatives are in the
fuel cycles and vehicle operation (and the related vehicle
comparability) facets of the life cycles.17,25 Vehicle manu-
facture and end-of-life differences among the engines and
fuel storage equipment are small (most differences are less
than 10%). The long-term, average maintenance costs for
alternatively fueled vehicles will approach those of con-
ventional vehicles.26 Additionally, ref 26 reports that life-
time fixed costs for the vehicles are expected to be similar.
Gasolinea–Baseline
SIII
SIII, SIDI
CIDI
CaRFG2
Diesel, EC Diesel,b Biodiesel (soybeans)
CH3OH
SIDI
C2H5OHc
CNG (3000 psig)
SIDI
SIII/SIDI
aConventional federal unleaded, nonreformulated gasoline; bARCO’s emission control
diesel, low-sulfur (~10 ppm S) test fuel; cBioethanol from corn, woody biomass, and
herbaceous biomass sources.
Emissions Control (EC) Diesel.16 The fuels are burned in
conventional port fuel injection [referred to as spark igni-
tion indirect injection (SIII)] and spark ignition direct in-
jection (SIDI) engines. The EC diesel fuel is used in a
compression ignition direct injection (CIDI) engine. Di-
rect injection allows leaner, more efficient operation but
produces increased NOx.
Efficiency estimates (with respect to a baseline con-
ventional gasoline automobile) for each of the combina-
tions were elicited from experts in the field and employed
along with fuel and vehicle properties to model “compa-
rable” automobiles based on a 1998 Ford Taurus sedan.17
Our comparable automobiles have a constant vehicle life-
time (225,300 km), range (595 km), vehicle emissions level
[California ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) standard],
and vehicle size class (e.g., midsize sedan). Based on some
currently produced gasoline and CNG vehicles attaining
ULEV certification, this is a realistic assumption for SIII
engines burning these fuels. There remains uncertainty
as to whether ULEV standards can be met with the direct
injection options while attaining high efficiency levels.
Experts do not expect conventional diesel-fueled auto-
mobiles to be able to meet ULEV (this option is not in-
cluded in this work for this reason); many question
whether vehicles with diesel engines can attain the stan-
dard, even with “clean” fuels.
We report life-cycle results based on outputs of an
economic input-output life-cycle analysis (EIO-LCA)
model18-20 and full fuel-cycle analysis models.5-9,21,22 The
EIO-LCA model includes economy-wide interactions and
associated environmental burdens resulting from a life-
cycle component. The life cycle is divided among vehicle
manufacture, use (consisting of fuel production, vehicle
operation, service, and fixed costs), and end-of-life stages.
The fuel/vehicle options are evaluated with respect to eco-
nomics, fuel properties/vehicle performance, environmen-
tal discharges [criteria pollutants, global warming potential
(GWP)], energy use, resource use (renewable and nonrenew-
able), fuel availability, and feasibility. GWP is calculated
Fuel Cycles
The magnitudes of fuel production energy use and pro-
cess emissions for fossil fuels are reported based on an
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1771

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
assessment of published studies.5-10 In selecting the full
fuel-cycle studies we utilize for the energy and emissions
estimates, we consider the study method, comprehensive-
ness, and year of the study, as well as publications that
cite the study results. The studies are generally in close
agreement. For the fossil fuels, we take averages where
possible of the values for energy use and the various pro-
cess emissions from the studies.
For the biofuels, particularly those that are not pro-
duced commercially or are produced as byproducts, the
data on feedstock yields, energy use, and especially pro-
cess emissions are more uncertain. We develop insights
for the biofuels based on fuel cycle data for biodiesel and
C2H5OH from biomass sources using near-term technolo-
gies.10,22,27-29 For the biofuel energy use and process emis-
sions, we utilize ref 10, and based on refs 28 and 29, we
update the biomass yields and electricity credits to corre-
spond to the latest available estimates. Additional details
of the biofuel method are in the Biofuels section.
options are slightly more attractive than 3600-psig op-
tions due to the lower storage cylinder wall thickness and
resulting lower-weight cylinders. However, there is a small
penalty for onboard fuel storage volume at the lower pres-
sure. Since the results are similar for both pressures17 and
fuel-cycle differences are small,30 we limit the scope of
this work to the 3000-psig options.
Due to safety issues associated with CH3OH as a
result of its toxicity and to its relative unattractiveness
(lower energy density, no significant efficiency or emis-
sions benefits) compared with C2H5OH, we do not ana-
lyze it further.
Biofuels
Concern over fossil fuel consumption, GHG emissions,
and U.S. dependence on foreign fuel sources has led to
the investigation of renewable fuel sources for automo-
biles. Currently, only a small percentage of energy is pro-
duced from renewable resources (3% of the U.S. energy
supply is provided by biomass sources, and a recent ex-
ecutive order calls for a tripling of that level by 2010).31 In
the United States, biofuels are produced from several
sources, including C2H5OH from corn and biodiesel from
soybeans. Approximately 1.5 billion gal of C2H5OH are
produced from corn annually, consuming ~6% of domes-
tic corn production.27 Aside from being derived from re-
newable sources and, therefore, supporting sustainability,
biofuels address issues of global warming, energy inde-
pendence (if the farming and fuel production are domes-
tic), and support for a farm economy. If the fuels and
inputs into the fuel production were to be produced us-
ing no fossil fuels, production and combustion of these
fuels would result in no net CO2. The carbon released as
CO2 from burning the fuel would be incorporated into
the regrowth of the plant.
Both C2H5OH and biodiesel are primary candidates
for renewable automobile fuels. Biodiesel used in high-
efficiency CIDI engines has the potential to be sustain-
able, has low sulfur content, and has resulting emissions
benefits. Attaining very low sulfur content in conven-
tional diesel fuel is expensive. C2H5OH has good ve-
hicle fuel properties, the potential to be sustainable,
low sulfur content (which benefits emissions), and can
be produced from several biomass sources. Currently,
corn is the primary source, but herbaceous biomass
crops (e.g., switch grass) and short rotation woody bio-
mass crops (e.g., hybrid poplars) are being developed
for C2H5OH production. Unfortunately, biofuels are
more expensive than gasoline (we include details in the
Fuel Expenditure section).
Fossil Fuels
Fossil fuels are nonrenewable; their production and use
result in large amounts of GHG emissions. However, gaso-
line is attractive with respect to price, availability, ease of
use, fuel properties (e.g., relatively high-energy density),
continuing vehicle performance and emissions improve-
ments (with RFG), and is supported by the current infra-
structure. We examine the potential of gasoline-powered
SIII vehicles to lower environmental costs by considering
CaRFG2 (the “cleanest” high-volume gasoline in the
United States). Additionally, we consider the potential of
direct injection engines with CaRFG2, as these engines
are capable of higher efficiency operation. However, the
more efficient direct injection engines produce more par-
ticulate matter and NOx. Much of the success of direct
injection engines will depend on the level of efficiency
they are able to attain while meeting strict emissions stan-
dards. We examine a low-sulfur diesel fuel, since it could
be used in the most efficient, proven ICE; while uncer-
tain, this fuel/engine combination may have the poten-
tial to meet ULEV standards.
Although CNG is a fossil fuel, it has several benefits
over other fossil fuels. It is an inherently “cleaner” fuel
resulting in lower engine emissions, is in abundant sup-
ply in North America, currently has a low price, and re-
sults in lower GWP. A primary impact of the vehicle
comparability issue is the additional fuel and fuel storage
required for CNG vehicles to attain the 595-km range.
For example, the CNG vehicle becomes considerably
heavier (average 1720 kg compared to the 1510-kg Taurus)
and less efficient than the baseline gasoline vehicle when
sufficient heavy storage cylinders are added to attain this
km range.17 Holding cylinder type constant, 3000-psig
Current and near-term biofuel production assumes the
use of fossil fuels for the production of fertilizers, as fuel
for farm equipment and transportation, and in varying
1772 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 October 2000

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
proportions for the fuel conversion process. The majority
of fuel conversion energy for corn C2H5OH and biodiesel
is currently from fossil fuel sources. In contrast, the near-
term assumption for the herbaceous and woody biomass-
derived fuels is that the combustion of the lignin
(a nonfermentable biomass component) can be used to
generate the steam and electricity required for C2H5OH
production, resulting in little fossil fuel use.27
RESULTS
Air Pollutants
The focus for automobile-related air pollutants has been
on vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions. The focus is
now shifting to other life-cycle stages due to the promise
of continuing significant improvements in vehicle emis-
sions.17,34,35 Since we assume all vehicles meet the ULEV
standard, exhaust and evaporative emissions are reported
to be equal. Table 2 reports life-cycle air pollutant emis-
sions for the fossil-fueled automobiles and the improve-
ment for the ULEV over the baseline Tier 1 vehicle.
The emissions associated with the manufacture of the
vehicle are larger in magnitude than those from the fossil
fuel cycles. Some of this difference is due to the EIO-LCA
model, which draws a larger boundary around the pro-
cess than the models used for the fuel-cycle results. For
ULEV vehicles, lifetime driving emissions are roughly
equal to the fuel-cycle emissions, except for CO where
fuel-cycle emissions are small. Even when vehicles attain
ULEV standards, exhaust emissions of CO dominate those
of the other life-cycle stages. For the various fuels, fuel-
cycle emissions are similar for each pollutant. Low sulfur,
reformulated fuels might require more processing and
energy than the values reported here.
To make a significant contribution, bioalcohols need
not replace all the gasoline used in light-duty vehicles.
However, an interesting statistic for biofuels is how much
land would have to be used for biomass growth in order
for the biofuel to replace the ~100 billion gal of gasoline
currently fueling the light-duty fleet.32 Approximately 120
billion gal of C2H5OH or 75 billion gal of biodiesel are
required, taking into account the differences in the heat-
ing values and fuel-engine efficiencies of the fuels (SIDI
with the bioethanol and CIDI with the biodiesel). Based
on current and near-term yields from refs 27 and 29, we
calculate the required corn, soybean, woody, and herba-
ceous biomass quantities. Farmland requirements are es-
timated based on the average U.S. corn, soybean, woody,
and herbaceous biomass yields.27,33 For these calculations,
the baseline case is conventional gasoline in an SIII en-
gine. To provide an additional reference point, we calcu-
late the amount of gasoline that would be required to
fuel the light-duty fleet assuming the fleet comprised SIDI
gasoline vehicles.
Fuel-cycle emissions for the biofuel options are re-
ported in refs 7, 10, 22, and 27. We report insights based
on these estimates. With current and near-term produc-
tion methods, the biofuels cycles (even with the electric-
ity credit in the case of the biomass C2H5OH) emit higher
levels of SO2, particles, and especially NO2 and CO, than
the fossil fuel cycles emit. The major sources of these
emissions are the combustion of the fossil fuel used in
producing the fertilizers and in operating farm and trans-
portation equipment, and emissions from the fuel con-
version processes. In our judgment, the current fuel-cycle
production emissions for the biofuels are not a signifi-
cant concern due to the potential to lower the emissions
from these processes (e.g., tractors using cleaner diesel with
emissions control systems). In the longer term, alcohol
or biodiesel-fueled tractors can replace current diesel trac-
tors. As expected, the electricity credit results in pollut-
ant emissions credits, since the biomass electricity is
cleaner than the primarily fossil fuel electricity it displaces.
Even with the near-term technology assumption, emis-
sions of SOx from biomass C2H5OH production are smaller
than for fossil fuel production, and in the cases where the
electricity credit is applied, these emissions are reported
as negative values.
The attractiveness of sustainable production of the
biofuels is evaluated using a simplified approach. We as-
sume that we are able to substitute the current or near-
term fuel-cycle fossil fuel use on a MJ basis with the
produced biofuel; that is, we assume that C2H5OH or
biodiesel can be used to produce fertilizer, to run farm
equipment, and provide process heat. We do not assume
any other process changes.
Since the co-products from using corn or soybeans
can be worth more than the fuel, the cost of the resulting
fuel depends on the value of the co-products. Both dry-
and wet-milling corn processes are used for C2H5OH pro-
duction. The dry-milling process is designed for C2H5OH
production, and the only co-product is distillers’ grains
and solubles. However, the wet-milling process has sev-
eral co-products, which are more valuable than the dis-
tillers’ grains and solubles.27 We present the dry-milling
scenario in this work. Co-products of biodiesel from soy-
beans are soymeal and glycerin. The only near-term bio-
mass C2H5OH co-product is steam from burning the lignin.
The steam can be used for process heat and the excess
used to generate electricity that can be sold to the grid.
We calculate the amounts of co-products that are produced
based on ref 10, updating co-product yields according to
refs 27–29.
Global Warming Potential
Figure 1 reports GWP for the vehicle alternatives. The
figure assumes sustainable production (no fossil fuel
use) for the biofuel options. We omit corn C2H5OH and
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1773

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
Table 2. Estimated air pollutants resulting from life cycles of fossil-fueled automobiles (kg/vehicle lifetime).
biodiesel since, as shown below, a
vast amount of land is required for
large-scale production. For any
fossil-fueled automobile option, the
amount of CO2 equivalent generated
from its life cycle is between 77,000
kg for the CNG SIDI combination
and 99,000 kg for the CaRFG2 SIII op-
tion. Multiplying this life-cycle
amount by the large number of ve-
hicles being produced in the United
States gives at least a partial indica-
tion of the magnitude of the impact
of these vehicles on GWP. Even with
a range of 595 km, the direct-injection
CNG vehicles have the potential to
lower GHG emissions by 30% com-
pared with the baseline vehicle. The
EC diesel lowers GHG emissions by
25% compared with the baseline
gasoline vehicle. RFG has local air
quality benefits but results in an in-
crease in GWP, even though the fuel
has a lower carbon content than
SOx
CO
NOx
NMOG/ VOCsa
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Manufacture
Service
54
22
9
82
29
17
0.7
44
16
7
20
4
6
2
Fixed Costs
End of Life
4
1
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.2
Vehicle Exhaust Emissionsb
Baseline (Tier 1)
ULEV
681
340
61
31
36
6
6
6
Fuel Productionc
Gasoline SIII
CaRFG2 SIII
28
32
28
24
10
9
16
17
15
12
20
17
24
26
23
16
40
35
13
13
11
5
6
6
6
4
3
2
CaRFG2 SIDI
EC Diesel CIDI
CNG 3000 SIII
CNG 3000 SIDI
6
5
b
aNonmethane organic gases (NMOG) for vehicles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for fuel production; Vehicle
exhaust emissions refers to estimates of both on- and off-cycle exhaust emissions discharged over the vehicle lifetime.
These amounts do not include an allowance for malfunction emissions. Sulfur oxides are not regulated exhaust emissions
and so are not included; cFuel production includes stages from raw materials extraction to delivery of fuel at end user.
Figure 1. Life cycle GWP of automobile alternatives (assumes sustainable production of biofuels).
1774 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 October 2000

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
Table 3. Energy use of ICE options (GJ/vehicle lifetime).
conventional gasoline. This is due to the slightly lower
vehicle fuel economy with CaRFG2 (because of lower
energy density of the fuel) and the additional energy
required during the fuel production. The potential for
GHG benefits from the direct injection engines is de-
pendent on their attaining a high efficiency while meet-
ing strict emissions standards.
For fossil fuels, the GWP from lifetime vehicle opera-
tion dwarfs the emissions from the other life-cycle
components. For the baseline automobile, the sum of
GWP emissions across all the life-cycle stages, except ve-
hicle operation, is 42,000-kg CO2 equivalent, compared
with 55,000 kg for vehicle operation. The GWP resulting
from the fossil fuel production is similar to that for ve-
hicle manufacture, about 20–30% of the GWP resulting
from vehicle operation.
Although some reductions in GHG emissions from
automobiles could be realized with the use of CNG and
increases in fossil-fueled vehicle efficiency, improve-
ments necessary to satisfy the Kyoto Agreement and a
sustainable transportation system require more radical
measures.36 Biofuels have the potential to offer these
much greater reductions. As mentioned previously, sus-
tainable production would result in no net CO2 from
the fuel cycle and fuel combustion. If the excess energy
were used to generate electricity that reduces generation
from conventional sources, there would be a net CO2
benefit. There remains a GWP due to the non-CO2 GHG
(for the current and near-term biofuels, these amounts
are less than 10,000 kg CO2 equivalent per vehicle life-
time). The fuel cycle emissions shown in Figure 1 are
due to these non-CO2 GHG.
Wang et al. report that even with current and near-
term production methods, there are potential GWP ben-
efits for the biofuels, particularly for biomass C2H5OH,
due to carbon sequestration, the electricity credit, and the
fact that little fossil fuel energy is used in the C2H5OH
conversion process.27 Current production of corn C2H5OH
and biodiesel has less benefit for GWP, due to the absence
of the electricity co-product, and significantly higher pro-
cess fossil energy. For a near-term scenario, ref 10 reports
about a 25% decrease in fuel-cycle CO2 equivalent emis-
sions for E85 (85% corn C2H5OH, 15% conventional gaso-
line) flexibly fueled vehicles compared with conventional
gasoline automobiles.
Life Cycle Stage or
Fuel/Powertrain
Industrya
Suppliersb
Total
Vehicle
Manufacture
Service
8
7
1
2
233
90
241
97
41
2
Fixed Costs
End of Life
40
Vehicle Use
Fuel Cycle
Vehicle Operation
Total
Gasoline SIII
154
172
816
800
705
612
612
657
657
657
657
657
803
701
970
972
CaRFG2 SIII
CaRFG2 SIDI
152
857
EC Diesel CIDI
Biodiesel CIDI
E100 Corn SIDI
E100 H SIDI Creditd
E100 H SIDI
E100 W SIDI Creditd
E100 W SIDI
CNG 3000 SIIIe
CNG 3000 SIDI
89
701
231/252c
400/420
73/988
125/1062
5/1116
108/1266
151
843/864
1057/1077
730/1645
782/1719
662/1773
765/1923
954
134
835
a
Note: Table assumes near-term production for biofuels; Refers to the primary/
final industry for the life-cycle stage (e.g., for manufacture, motor vehicle, and
b
passenger car bodies); Refers to all of the industries throughout the economy
c
who are the suppliers to the industry referred to in item a; First entry is fossil
d
energy and second figure is total energy; H is herbaceous biomass, W is woody
e
biomass, and Credit is electricity credit co-product for biofuels; CNG – Type 3
cylinders, 3000-psig pressure.
not likely the same processes would be employed with
large-scale production. The results for any of the other
options are within 10% of the baseline’s 1351 GJ. Mir-
roring the GWP results, the operational energy use for
the fossil fuel options is much larger than the energy
required for fuel production. For example, to produce
the gasoline for the baseline vehicle over its lifetime
requires ~150 GJ, while operating the vehicle requires
over 800 GJ.
Table 3 reports near-term amounts of total and fossil
energy for the biofuels. Comparing fuel cycle total en-
ergy for the biofuels with that of the fossil fuels is mis-
leading. For bioalcohols and biodiesel, large amounts of
energy are required in the conversion processes. For the
fossil fuels, nature has already converted the biomass to
these fuels (e.g., petroleum is formed by the decay and
incomplete oxidation of biomass and animal debris bur-
ied in sedimentary rocks during geologic times); there-
fore, far less energy is required throughout the fossil fuel
cycles. A more relevant fuel-cycle energy use comparison
is to compare fossil fuel energy use, since, particularly for
the biomass C2H5OH, the majority of the energy used in
Energy Use
Table 3 shows energy use for the automobile life cycles.
Comparing the fossil fuel automobile options, there are
not substantial differences in their life-cycle energy use.
The EC diesel results in the largest saving, 20%, due to
its high efficiency. However, the energy required to pro-
duce this very low sulfur diesel is uncertain, and it is
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1775

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
the biomass conversion plant is from the biomass itself.
Just 10% of the biomass fuel cycle energy is required for
biomass farming and transportation to a C2H5OH conver-
sion facility; the remaining 90% is used in the conversion
of biomass to C2H5OH and its transport, storage, and dis-
tribution.
the reduced yields and resulting larger land area required
for the sustainable production.
The land area of the United States is 1.94 billion acres.
Ninety-two million acres are developed, 380 million acres
are cropland, and 125 million acres are pastureland, yield-
ing a total of ~600 million acres.32 Even eliminating from
consideration land that is in areas too dry or too cold to
grow biomass, or on hills and mountains too high or steep
to harvest, there is a great deal of land that could be used
for growing woody or herbaceous biomass.
Most current biofuel processes do not take advan-
tage of the use of waste materials in production of the
fuels. For example, the current production of corn
C2H5OH uses cornstarch as the raw material. The pro-
cess might also use the corn stover as biomass to pro-
duce C2H5OH. If so, the biomass process would supply
additional C2H5OH as well as steam to run both processes.
Electricity credits associated with this fuel production
are even possible.
Note that the co-product of the woody and herba-
ceous alcohol cycles is electricity, while the corn C2H5OH
and particularly the biodiesel fuel cycles yield more valu-
able co-products. Based on the near-term electricity cred-
its associated with woody and herbaceous biomass (1.73
and 0.865 kWh/gal of C2H5OH produced, respectively),27
production of 120 billion gal of C2H5OH would result in
net electricity generation of ~210 million MWh for woody
biomass or 105 million MWh for herbaceous biomass.
These amounts correspond to 6 and 3%, respectively, of
current net U.S. generation. Based on ref 27, this electric-
ity co-product is assumed to have the potential to dis-
place electricity generation on the basis of the U.S. average
generation mix. For additional details, see ref 27. Efficiency
improvements for C2H5OH production would trade in-
creased C2H5OH yield for decreased electricity credits. Pro-
ducing C2H5OH from corn (dry-milling process) or
biodiesel from soybeans in the above quantities yields
After subtracting the fossil energy required to pro-
duce 1 gal of C2H5OH from the energy contained in the
gallon, the net energy balance is close to 60,000 Btu/gal
for biomass C2H5OH (even ignoring the electricity cred-
its) and 25,000 Btu/gal for corn C2H5OH.
Fuel Availability/Feasibility
Experts disagree on the amount of petroleum that could
be extracted at prices close to the current levels. Similarly,
there is no consensus on the amount of natural gas that
could be extracted at current prices. However, since the
United States imports more than half of the petroleum it
uses, even relatively small reductions in demand due to
the use of biofuels could help to lower oil prices and in-
crease U.S. energy security.
Table 4 reports biofuel yields and land required to
substitute the gasoline currently used by SIII light-duty
vehicles with the biofuels used in their relevant engines.
Results for both current/near-term and sustainable pro-
duction are shown. The low soybean yield per acre is a
primary factor in the much larger land requirement for
the biodiesel. Assuming a 5–15% efficiency advantage of
SIDI gasoline engines over SIII, and taking into account
the slightly lower energy content of CaRFG2 (which is
the fuel we assume is used in SIDI engines), between 88
and 98 billion gal CaRFG2 would be required to fuel the
current fleet if SIDI automobiles were used.17
Two central biofuel issues are sustainable production
and co-product value. Clearly, with sustainable produc-
tion (using biodiesel or C2H5OH to run tractors, etc.), less
C2H5OH is available to fuel automobiles. Table 4 indicates
Table 4. Biofuel requirements to replace 100 billion gal of gasoline used to fuel SIII vehicles:a near-term and sustainable poduction.
Fuel
Biosourceb Yield
(bushel or dry
ton/acre/yr)c
Fuel Yield:
Near-Termd
Required Biosource
(billions bushels
or dry tons)
Land Required:
Near-Term
Fuel Yield:
Sustainable Productione
(gal fuel/bushel
or dry ton)
Land Required:
Sustainable
(gal fuel/bushel
or dry ton)
Production
Production
(billions acres)
(billions acres)
Corn C2H5OH
125
5.75
5.26
36
2.6
80
46
1.5
1.6
55
0.37
0.26
0.30
1.5
0.85
63
1.1
0.33
0.37
2.6
Herbaceous C2H5OH
Woody C2H5OH
Soybean Biodiesel
76
62
1.4
0.81
aValues in the table are to produce 120 billion gal of C2H5OH or 75 billion gal of biodiesel; bBiosource refers to corn, soybeans, or biomass corresponding to that required for the fuel
produced; cValues for corn and soybeans are reported in bushels, those for herbaceous and woody biomass in dry tons biomass; dNear-term refers to current corn C2H5OH and soybean
biodiesel production and near-term C2H5OH from herbaceous and woody biomass; eSustainable production refers to no fossil fuel use throughout the entire fuel cycle.
1776 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 October 2000

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
significant amounts of co-products. The corn C2H5OH pro-
duction would result in 332 million dry tons of distillers’
grains and solubles, and the soybean biodiesel, 55 mil-
lion tons of glycerin and 1.2 billion tons of soymeal.
Unused farm land and excess production of corn and
soybeans might make some production of corn C2H5OH
or biodiesel attractive, particularly if there were high de-
mand for the co-products and concern for reducing pe-
troleum imports. However, using food to produce vehicle
fuel in a world with more than 6 billion people raises moral
concerns. In addition, corn and soybeans require more
fertilizer, pesticides, and effort (e.g., irrigation, planting,
harvesting) than the herbaceous and woody biomass
sources. Furthermore, the amount of land suitable for corn
or soybeans is much smaller than the amount of land
suitable for hybrid trees or grasses. In our judgment, fuels
from corn and soybeans will not have an appreciable ef-
fect on the market for light-duty vehicle fuel.
net of taxes, delivery, and retail markup. Since some of
the fuel/engine combinations are more efficient on an
energy content basis than is gasoline in an SIII engine, the
fuel prices are reported on an energy content basis. The
gasoline price estimates are based on the October 1999 re-
finery gate price of $0.629/gal for conventional gasoline
and the additional premium for CaRFG2.37 Since the price
of EC diesel is uncertain, our estimate reflects the Octo-
ber 1999 refinery gate price of conventional diesel plus a
small premium.
Estimates of costs of production of C2H5OH from bio-
mass range from $0.6 to $1.9/gal, with similar average
costs for production from woody and herbaceous sources.33
Wooley et al. report a near-term production cost of
C2H5OH from woody biomass as $1.44/gal C2H5OH (with
an uncertainty range of +$0.20/–$0.08); assuming the best
industry technology, the cost is $1.16.29 In terms of gaso-
line equivalent gallons, the costs are $1.73 and $1.39, re-
spectively. Wooley et al. estimate that biomass feedstock
conversion costs will fall to $0.76/gal by 2015.29 Based on
these reports, we assume identical near-term C2H5OH cost
from herbaceous and woody biomass, resulting in a cost
of $1.44/gal.
We calculate the price for corn C2H5OH using two
information sources. Both costs are reported in Table 5.
The first value is based on C2H5OH industry price infor-
mation; EIN Publishing Inc. reports an October 1999 sell-
ing price for C2H5OH FOB their plant of $0.90/gal.38 We
calculate the second value based on the current C2H5OH
subsidy for its use in gasohol and on the gasoline excise
tax being reduced by $0.06/gal for C2H5OH-blended gaso-
line. Therefore, this provides a $0.60/gal C2H5OH subsidy,
since typically one part C2H5OH is blended with nine parts
Fertilizer Use
Fertilizer use for the fossil fuel cycles is small.7,10 The EIO-
LCA model reports small amounts of fertilizer use by the
supplier industries to vehicle manufacture, service, and
fixed costs. Assuming near-term technology production
methods, farming of all of the biofuel crops requires sig-
nificant amounts of fertilizer. Corn and herbaceous bio-
mass farming require large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer—
440 g/bushel and 9300 g/dry ton biomass, respectively.10
Woody biomass and soybeans require far less nitrogen
fertilizer— about 930 g/dry ton and 130 g/bushel, respec-
tively. Smaller amounts of phosphoric and potassium fer-
tilizers are required. The use of the additional nitrogen
fertilizer in production of the herbaceous biomass is a
major source of the higher GHG emis-
sions of N2O from the C2H5OH produced
Table 5. Near-term fuel prices and lifetime expenditure on fuel (net of taxes, delivery, and retail markup).
from this feedstock. However, compared
with corn, production of soybeans and
biomass has lower N2O and NOx emis-
sions from nitrification and denitrifica-
tion of nitrogen fertilizer. Wang reports
that ~1.5% of the nitrogen in nitrogen
fertilizer applied to corn fields is released
as N2O to the atmosphere.10
Fuel
Lifetime Energy
Required (GJ)
Pricea
Lifetime
(1999$/GJ)
Expenditure (1999$)
Gasoline SIII
740
740
650
570
570
595
595
595
720
640
5.18
5.85
3836
4330
CaRFG2 SIII
CaRFG2 SIDI
5.85
3804
EC Diesel CIDI
4.40
2510
Biodiesel CIDI
13.88
7911
C2H5OH SIDI Corn
C2H5OH SIDI Herbaceous Biomass
C2H5OH SIDI Woody Biomass
CNG 3000-psig SIII
CNG 3000-psig SIDI
11.22,b 15.34c
17.96
6679,b 9128c
10,686
10,686
1663
Fuel Expenditure
We estimate the expenditure on each fuel
for the conventional and alternative-
fueled vehicles over their lifetimes. We
assume constant annual fuel use and con-
stant fuel price, based on current and
near-term technologies. The entries in
Table 5 are the estimated lifetime
(225,300 km) fuel expenditure estimates
17.96
2.31
2.31
1478
Note: Number of significant digits in the table is for calculation purposes and does not represent the accuracy of the
figures; aAssumes use of current technology for fossil fuel, corn C2H5OH, and biodiesel production and near-term
technology for herbaceous and woody biomass fuels; bPrice calculated based on C2H5OH subsidy based on its use in
gasohol; cPrice calculated based on October 1999 C2H5OH price [EIN 00].
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1777

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
gasoline, resulting in a corn C2H5OH price of $1.23/gal.
Prices of CNG are based on a wellhead price of $2.31/
MCF (million standard cubic feet) for October 1999.37
Compared to the baseline, the only significant sav-
ing is through the use of CNG or diesel. The high effi-
ciency of the diesel lowers fuel cost; however, the price of
low sulfur, reformulated diesel, were it produced in sig-
nificant volume, is very uncertain. The biofuels are con-
siderably more expensive than the fossil fuel options. The
infrastructure required and the associated cost of biofuel
production is the major barrier to wider use. The refinery
gate price for gasoline is less than half the production
cost of bioethanol.
•
What will be the efficiency of direct injection
engines after modifying them to meet strict emis-
sions standards?
•
•
•
•
Can diesel engines meet strict emissions stan-
dards using low-sulfur reformulated fuel?
What are near-term biomass yields, processing
costs, C2H5OH yields, and electricity credits?
What would be the price of CNG if there were a
major increase in the demand for this fuel?
What will happen to gasoline and diesel prices,
both as a result of petroleum price changes and
as a result of requiring low-sulfur, reformulated
fuels?
•
What will future regulations require for tailpipe
emissions, fuel economy, and GHG emissions?
CONCLUSIONS
Gasoline- and diesel-fueled automobiles have made im-
portant progress in improving fuel economy and reduc-
ing emissions. Near-term improvements of gasoline
vehicles, combined with low-sulfur RFG, make it difficult
for any fuel to displace gasoline. A further difficulty is the
need to build a new infrastructure to produce and deliver
the alternative fuel. No alternative fuel is likely to be suc-
cessful unless there are substantial petroleum price in-
creases or more stringent regulations concerning emissions
and fuel economy standards, along with new regulations
concerning GHG emissions.
CNG is the most attractive alternative fuel, since it is
currently less expensive than gasoline and diesel and has
lower emissions. However, onboard storage and vehicle
range issues, along with the need for new pipelines to
transport the gas and new filling stations to sell it, poten-
tially doom widespread adoption of CNG. Additionally,
with a strong focus on GWP, a shift away from fossil fuels
would be necessary. And although diesel vehicles are at-
tractive due to their high efficiency and fuel availability,
the ability of these vehicles to meet strict emissions stan-
dards even with low sulfur, reformulated fuel is uncertain.
Biofuels offer the benefits of lower GHG emissions,
sustainability, and domestic fuel production. The herba-
ceous and woody biomass-based C2H5OH options are more
attractive than producing the biofuels from food prod-
ucts. The latter crops require additional maintenance, and
feasible fuel production requires a high demand for their
co-products. The C2H5OH from herbaceous or woody bio-
mass could replace much of the gasoline required for the
light-duty fleet while supplying electricity as a co-prod-
uct. While it is more expensive than gasoline, bioethanol
would be attractive if the price of gasoline doubled, if sig-
nificant reductions in GHG emissions were required, or
with tightening of fuel economy regulations for gasoline
vehicles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was made possible through support from
the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimen-
sions of Global Change. This center has been created
through a cooperative agreement between the National
Science Foundation (SBR-9521914) and Carnegie Mellon
University, and has been generously supported by grants
from the Electric Power Research Institute, the ExxonMobil
Corporation, Texaco, Sloan Foundation, General Motors,
American Petroleum Institute, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. All views expressed herein are those
of the authors.
REFERENCES
1. MacLean, H.L.; Lave, L.B. A Life-Cycle Model of an Automobile;
Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 3 (7), 322A.
2. Transportation Energy Databook, 18th ed.; Davis, S., Ed.; ORNL-6941;
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, 1998.
3. Lave, L.B.; MacLean, H.L. An Environmental-Economic Evaluation
of Hybrid Electric Vehicles: The Toyota Prius; Transportation Res., sub-
mitted for publication, 1999.
4. Dougher, R.S.; Hogarty, T.F. Octane Requirements of the Motor Vehicle
Fleet and Gasoline Grade Sales; Research Study #083; R-48958; Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 1996.
5. Evaluation of Fuel-Cycle Emissions on a Reactivity Basis: Vol. 1–Main
Report; Acurex Environmental Final Report; FR-96-114; Prepared for
the California Air Resources Board by Acurex Environmental Corp.:
Mountain View, CA, 1996.
6. Evaluation of Fuel-Cycle Emissions on a Reactivity Basis: Vol. 2–Appendi-
ces; Acurex Environmental Final Report; FR-96-114; Prepared for the
California Air Resources Board by Acurex Environmental Corp.: Moun-
tain View, CA, 1996.
7. Delucchi, M.A. A Revised Model of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from
the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity; UCD-ITS-RR-97-8; Insti-
tute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis: Davis,
CA, 1997.
8. Delucchi, M.A. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transpor-
tation Fuels and Electricity. Vol. 1: Main Text; ANL/ESD/TM-22; Center
for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne,
IL, 1991.
9. Kreucher, W.M. Ford Motor Company, Detroit, MI. Personal commu-
nication, 1999.
10. Wang, M.Q. GREET 1.4 Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model; Center for
Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL,
1998.
11. Sullivan, J.L.; Williams, R.L.; Yester, S.; Cobas-Flores, E.; Chubbs, S.T.;
Hentges, S.G.; Pomper, S.D. Life-Cycle Inventory of a Generic U.S.
Family Sedan—Overview and Results USCAR AMP Project; SAE Tech-
nical Paper 982160; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale,
PA, 1998.
Major uncertainties need to be resolved before firm
policy conclusions can be drawn.
1778 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 October 2000

MacLean, Lave, Lankey, and Joshi
29. Wooley, R.; Ruth, M.; Sheehan, J.; Ibsen, K.; Majdeski, H.; Galvez, A.
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utiliz-
ing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Cur-
rent and Futuristic Scenarios; NREL/TP-580-26157; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, July 1999.
30. Joshi, S. Alternative Fuel Cycles: Energy Use and Discharges; Working
Paper; Green Design Initiative, Carnegie Mellon University: Pitts-
burgh, PA, 1999.
31. Wald, M.L. U.S. Will Try to Replace Fossil Fuels with Farm Products.
New York Times, August 12, 1999.
32. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996, 116th ed.; U.S. Bureau of
the Census: Washington, DC, 1996; Tables No. 365, p 229 and 1019,
p 632.
33. Lankey, R. Alternative Fuels from Biomass; Technical Report (and sup-
porting spreadsheet); Green Design Initiative, Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity: Pittsburgh, PA, 1999.
34. Cadle, S.H.; Gorse, R.A.; Belian, T.C.; Lawrence, D.R. Real-World Ve-
hicle Emissions: A Summary of the Eighth Coordinating Research
Council On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop; J. Air & Waste Man-
age. Assoc. 1999, 49, 242.
35. Ross, M.; Goodwin, M.; Watkins, T.; Wenzel, T.; Wang, M. Real-World
Emissions from Conventional Passenger Cars; J. Air & Waste Manage.
Assoc. 1998, 48, 502.
12. Kreucher, W.M. Economic, Environmental and Energy Life-Cycle In-
ventory of Automotive Fuels; SAE Technical Paper 982218; Society of
Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 1998.
13. Schweimer, G.; Schuckert, M. Life Cycle Inventory of a Golf;
Forschungsbericht Nr. K–EFVT 9604 V/5; Volkswagen
Konzernforschung: Wolfsburg, Germany, 1996.
14. Sullivan, J.L.; Costic, M.M.; Han, W. Automotive Life Cycle Assess-
ment Overview, Metrics, and Examples; SAE Technical Paper 980467;
Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 1998.
15. Sullivan, J.L.; Hu, J. Life Cycle Energy Analysis for Automobiles; SAE
Technical Paper 951829; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale,
PA, 1995.
16. New ARCO Diesel Fuel Could Lead to Cleaner Bus, Truck, and Car
Emissions; Press Release, ARCO, 1999.
17. MacLean, H.L.; Lave, L.B. Environmental Implications of Alternative
Fueled Automobiles: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Tradeoffs;
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34 (2), 225.
18. Hendrickson, C.; Horvath, A.; Joshi, S.; Lave, L. Economic Input-
Output Models for Environmental Life Cycle Assessment; Environ.
Sci. Technol. 1998, 3 (4), 184A.
19. Lave, L.B.; Cobas-Flores, E.; Hendrickson, C.T.; McMichael, F.C. Us-
ing Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Economy-Wide Discharges;
Environ. Sci. Technol. 1995, 29 (9), 420.
36. White House Web site, The Historic Kyoto Agreement: A Critical First
Step in a Global Effort to Address Global Warming. Target and Time-
table. www1.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/1B_CLIMA.html (accessed 1997).
37. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration Web
site, Table 6. U.S. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade and Sales
Type; Table 4. Selected National Average Natural Gas Prices, 1993-
1999. www.eia.doe.gov/price.html (accessed March 20, 2000).
38. Ethanol Interest Grows as Gas Prices Increase; EIN Newsletter, EIN Pub-
lishing: Alexandria, VA; March 14, 2000.
20. Cobas-Flores, E.; Hendrickson, C.T.; Lave, L.B.; McMichael, F.C. Eco-
nomic Input/Output Analysis to Aid Life Cycle Assessment of Elec-
tronics Products. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Symposium on
Electronics and the Environment; Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, May 1995; p 273.
21. Wang, M.Q. Development and Use of the GREET Model to Estimate Fuel-
Cycle Energy Use and Emissions of Various Transportation Technologies
and Fuels; ANL/ESD-31; Center for Transportation Research, Argonne
National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, 1996.
22. Sheehan, J.; Camobreco, V.; Duffield, J.; Graboski, M.; Shapouri, H.
Life-Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban
Bus; Final Report; NREL/SR-580-24089; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory: Golden, CO, 1998.
23. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–1997; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy: Washington, DC,
1999.
24. Cadle, S.H.; Groblicki, P.J.; Gorse, R.A.; Hood, J.; Korduba-Sawicky,
D.; Sherman, M. A Dynamometer Study of Off-Cycle Exhaust Emis-
sion—The Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Programs; SAE
Technical Paper 971655; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale,
PA, 1997.
25. MacLean, H.L. Life-Cycle Models of Conventional and Alternative-
Fueled Automobiles. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pitts-
burgh, PA, 1998.
26. Federal Alternative Motor Fuels Programs Fifth Annual Report to Con-
gress; DOE/GO-10096-240; U.S. Department of Energy, Department
of Transportation Technologies, National Renewable Energy Labora-
tory: Golden, CO, 1996.
27. Wang, M.; Saricks, C.; Santini, D. Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-
Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; ANL/ESD-38; Center for
Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL,
1999.
About the Authors
Heather L. MacLean is an assistant professor in the De-
partment of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada. Lester B. Lave is the Higgins Professor of Eco-
nomics in the Graduate School of Industrial Administration
at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Rebecca
Lankey is an AAAS Environmental Sciences and Engineer-
ing Fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. Satish Joshi is an assistant professor in
the department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.
28. Wang, M.Q. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL. Personal com-
munication, 1999.
Volume 50 October 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1779